[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OSI affiliation

On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 09:31 +0000, Philip Hands wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:41:10 +0000, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > Jose Luis Rivas <ghostbar@debian.org>
> > > Just to give context to your email, could you provide a list with the
> > > OSI-approved licenses that you call non-free? (Maybe a link) That way
> > > every one else knows which licenses are you talking about exactly.
> > 
> > http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt
> > shows the ones where OSI and FSF disagree, but what's the
> > point of knowing which are involved?  Basically, OSI has
> > aided proliferation.
> If they've not already done so, they could also have a "Open Source, but
> we'd rather you didn't use this drivel" category, with a recommended
> equivalent license that is a better choice if you were thinking of using
> that one.

OSI's proliferation report <http://opensource.org/proliferation-report>
and list by category <http://opensource.org/licenses/category>
distinguishes their favoured common licences and the pointless licences,
though it doesn't say which common licences are recommended as


Ben Hutchings
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. - Leonard Brandwein

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: